How many times can you dispute the same entry on a credit report? Also, how long should you wait between disputing? Is there a way to get a creditor to take a late payment off your credit report? Illini
How many times can you dispute the same entry on a credit report? I would say as many times as you want. 5 is the most times I've disputed the same item. I usually change up between online and mailed disputes. I have even done the same dispute back to back, generally I'll change up my letter and/or the dispute reason. Also, how long should you wait between disputing? I usually send my next round shortly after the results of the prior round. Is there a way to get a creditor to take a late payment off your credit report? You could try Doc's Litigous Nutcase letter or draft one of your own. I have modified the validation letter for use with a creditor, although it didn't work like I expected. What did happen though, was that the creditor pulled a hard inquiry and re-aged the account. I was able to use those violations to my advantage to get them to remove the derog. I've got Doc's letter out to some stubborn late pays currently. I'm hoping for some results or better yet for them to make a mistake. If I can get them to pull a (non-permissable) hard inquiry or re-age the account, then I have proof of a violation which I can sue them for. Of course, prior to the suit I would offer them a pre-settlement offer to just remove the tradeline or take off all the lates.
Hello Pat- I just wanted to thank you for your help on my first posting (CCCS, 7 years). My question kind of got buried from this morning, but it is very similar with regard to re-disputing a verified item... but I really want to know when it is appropriate to use the procedural request vs. re-disputing the entry? Hope you are someone else can help.
Just my opinion, but I'd always redispute over procedural. Only way I'd use the producrual letter is if the creditor requested an item removed from 2 of the reports, and the third says it's verified. For example: Wells Fargo Financial has already told Experian and TU to delete a derog that I've questioned, and rather quickly I might add. If Equisux verifies it, then I'll shoot that letter off (Because it's obvious EQ didn't contact WFF) GT
Several have referenced Docs "litigous nutcase letter" on this board, and all along I was thinking "what the heck is that?" Well I finally found it and I think it is fantastic. Illini, search "nutcase letter" and you will find the letter in earlier postings.
I don't know about you guys, but Experian will not reinvestigate any item that I have already disputed if it comes back verified so I can't get past them. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.
Isn't there a time period that you can wait before requesting an investigation?? I've heard that if you change the letter to be specific (I.e. from Never late to I dispute that 60 day late) that they'll do it...but I'm not sure. GT
Kit, Your very welcome. I'd have to agree with GT on this one. Anytime I asked for a procedural request, they'd give me the address and phone number that I already have. Even if they gave you a name at the creditor, what good is it going to do? That is unless the tradeline really isn't yours or wrong. I'd just re-dispute it.
That makes sense... I just wasn't sure how the CRAs handled procedural requests (if they will review new documents you may have to prove that it should not have been verified). I guess I am always safe with re-disputing.
Name of Old Fully-Paid Acquaintance Address City, STATE ZIP To Whom It May Concern: I am formally requesting that you validate all tradeline notations you have submitted to the three major credit reporting agencies by â??NAME OF COLLECTION AGENCYâ? or â??NAME OF ORIGINAL CREDITORâ? for me, YOUR NAME, for account number XXXXXXXXX. Due to possible inaccuracies in these CRA reports, I must demand that the validation I hereby lawfully request be in the form of a notarized statement by a person with original knowledge of the debt as it was constituted and who can testify that the debt was incurred legally, was not subsequently disputed as a result of returned, faulty, or recalled consumer products, was not utilized as a profit-loss tax deduction during the period it may have been payable, and was not claimed as a loss with any insuring entity during the period it may have been payable. Please be advised that I am not requesting a verification that you have my mailing address; rather, I am requesting validation, i.e., competent evidence that I had some contractual obligation sans consumer protection encumbrance which incurred the original claims associated with this tradeline. I have enclosed two documents which will verify my address: a photocopy of a [YOUR STATE] Driverâ??s License and a photocopy of a recent [NAME OF UTILITY OR TELEPHONE COMPANY] statement. Please know that you have 30 days from the tracked and confirmed delivery of this lawful notice to either answer these demands or to remove the associated negative tradeline notations from the CRA reports. Any other action may constitute evidence of your intent to abridge one or more civil or other constitutional rights. Please be further advised that continued unsubstantiated reporting of possible inaccuracies to third parties may provide a basis for criminal complaints being filed in accordance with FDCPA, FCRA, and other federal statutes. I look forward to a timely and amicable resolution to this matter. Sincerely yours, Your Name Address City, STATE ZIP _____________________ Is this the "nutcase" letter?
Yes I think it depends on the schmoe who receives your dispute, the different affiliates (perhaps their own unwritten or written policy), etc. I've disputed the same chgoff as not mine 5 times with my local equifax affiliate (and of course its still there), but they accepted all the disputes. Once I dispute something on CE, I can't seem to dispute it again, even 3 months later. But if I send it in writing, they've accepted it. TU took everything off in a very few disputes, but others can't get them to take off anything. It's kind of a crap shoot. I think if one way doesn't work, try another. Change up the letter, dispute reason, or go after different tradelines and come back to it next round. I'm now a big proponent of going after the original creditor now. Probably because I've gotten as far as I think I'm going to with disputes. The procedural request is supposed to be them telling you who they contacted and how it was verified. But it's really bogus. Its not like they say oops.. he caught us, let's remove it. I think if you have any proof you should send it with the next dispute. Although, Experian has ignored proof from me on a re-aged tradeline. It seems to me now that all the validation, disputing, etc. may get the item deleted, but if it doesn't you keep at them until someone (CRA or creditor) makes a mistake. Then you nail them. The funny thing is, Bill Bauer used to profess this and I never bought it. How things change
If I send this "nutcase" letter, will I have a lawsuit brought on myself or any crazy stuff like that?
I haven't heard of one yet. You aren't really threatening anything, just asking (demanding?) proof of the debt. There are quite a few people who have used it. I think you can find some testimonials around here if you search. I have a couple out now, so I'll post the results when I have some. I changed it a bit and would suggest you do the same.
Hi, Illini, the nutcase letter is designed for fully-paid accounts for which there are late-pay tradelines in your credit files. If indeed you have fully paid your account, then the creditor has no leverage against you. You borrowed money from them, and you paid them back. You have not wronged them, so they have no reason to sue you. The nutcase letter demands that they answer questions about the debt in a certain way, and it suggests that they may be liable for damages should they elect to ignore you. Suddenly, the shoe is on the other foot -- the creditor is beholden unto you. The letter may not work (although it has worked every time I used it), but you have nothing to lose by trying. Please search the board for "nutcase letter" and read the original rationale. Doc
i think procedural request work when the information being verified is actually incorrect or you believe that the cra is not actually verifying the information. for instance, i just recieved report back from tu on disputes that they say they verified, however, none of the dates changed on the report (date verified did not change). I will be contacting creditor shortly and i know they are lying but i want it in writing so i can sue.
This letter has caused the creditor to just drop the late pay notations on the credit reports? What causes them to do this?
Illini, please read the rationale -- it explains why creditors take that action. (The summary is -- they would rather not waste their time with a nutcase who has already paid his bill who looks likely to stir up costly legal trouble.) Doc
